Bruce G. McEachern

The plaintiff sued for unpaid costs and a management fee related to a home renovation project.

The Master found a cost-plus contract existed but denied the management fee, awarding the plaintiff $31,556.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 54.09 opposing the confirmation of the Master's report.

The Superior Court found the Master made a palpable and overriding error in concluding a contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms.

The court set aside the Master's report and awarded the plaintiff $106,060.19 on a quantum meruit basis for services rendered.

A commercial tenant sought relief from forfeiture after failing to take possession and pay rent under a replacement lease following a court‑ordered surrender of its prior premises.

The landlord cross‑moved to vary an earlier order regarding payment of a lease inducement that had been withheld after the tenant vacated the premises leaving substantial damage and removing fixtures.

Applying s. 20(1) of the Commercial Tenancies Act and equitable principles governing relief from forfeiture, the court considered the tenant’s conduct, the gravity of the breaches, and whether the landlord could be compensated in money.

Although the tenant’s conduct contributed to the dispute, the court held the landlord had no right to withhold inducement funds as security for potential damages.

Relief from forfeiture was granted on conditions, including payment of utility arrears and application of funds held in trust toward rent and renovations at the replacement premises.

Following a motion in which the plaintiffs obtained an injunction but the defendants succeeded in securing an order requiring payment of $112,500 related to lease arrangements, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $48,000.

While the court found the bill of costs reasonable, it held that the defendants achieved partial success on the motion and therefore reduced the plaintiffs’ recoverable fees and corresponding HST by half while allowing full recovery of disbursements.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $26,897.51 in costs, subject to set-off depending on whether the previously ordered $112,500 payment had already been made.

The tenant sought an interlocutory injunction restoring possession of leased premises after the landlord locked it out pursuant to a surrender of lease agreement tied to a relocation to replacement premises.

The tenant argued the agreements should be rescinded due to mutual mistake regarding zoning and building code requirements for operating a hot yoga studio.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald, the court held the tenant failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.

The zoning and regulatory requirements were readily ascertainable and did not constitute a fundamental mistake undermining the agreements, and any losses were compensable in damages.

The court therefore refused the injunction, ordered the tenant to vacate the original premises, and required the landlord to pay the remaining inducement payment while permitting the tenant to occupy the replacement premises under the replacement lease.